The Coaching Pyramid: Time Allocation Differences Between Team & 1-ON-1 Coaching (PT.1)

In part 1 of this 3 part discussion regarding time allocation to athletes as a coach I introduced the struggles of determining how much individual specificity you can apply as group size increases. Conclusively the larger the group the less specificity one can apply to each individual, opting for the generalized approach to better facilitate the team's greatest needs. Coupled with time and resource restraints adopting this generalized approach appears to be the best course of action. On top of this we discussed the right side of the pyramid, where we see a reduction in need for specificity when we apply the professional aspect of sport, where professionals need less specificity or time allocated to them based on 3 key reasons (discussed in part 1). Where this led the conversation was to two questions. One of consideration, balancing the wants and needs of the many while trying to serve the team as a whole, how do you satisfy the "needy" or the athletes who don't understand your approach. The other being building trust, understanding, and drive amongst clients/teams based on your approach to coaching the group size.

Firstly, i'd like to adopt a more this vs that approach, where the principle of the pyramid remains closely attached to the discussion, but the contrasts between coaching teams vs 1-on-1 clients becomes more prominent in the discussion.

Far too often in my opinion do coaches get questions like "when are we going to do X?" "Why don't we do such and such exercise?" ...I do this with my trainer at home, how come we don't do it here? etc etc. To be fair, the conversation truthfully should end with "trust the process" or "we aren't at home" ... but of course it's far more complex then that, and let's face it, a response like that often leaves the questioner thinking you don't know or have an answer furthering their lack of trust. Consideration is hard to come by amongst larger groups and especially youth athletes as they simply don't possess the reasoning or understanding of the principles you are trying to implement. Add in the fact that you're a young coach like myself and bonne chance! In the case of a 1-on-1 client, consideration and trust is built differently. 1-on-1 clients most often are coming to you with the understanding that they don't possess the understanding and reasoning to develop their own programming and thus breaking down that wall of consideration is easy or non existent in the first place. Trust is another battle at times, as clients will understand that they need professional aid in program design, but hold on to previous misinformations or methods that had worked in the past or made them comfortable and tend to question the process when they see things they are unfamiliar with. Collectively the 1-on-1 client landscape features fewer follies when it comes to developing consideration and trust between the client and coach.

So how do you get your athletes to be considerate of your generalist approach and build the trust you deserve? I have found that the easiest procedure is providing them the clearest short answer possible followed with a follow up message with more information. Example: Player X asks me "When are we going to do explosive lateral skater squats?"

Short answer: That movement is a power based movement that doesn't have application in our current training block. For reassurance, we currently do tempo lateral step ups which will aid in the aforementioned movement when we move into the power phase.

OR if you can't rattle that off...

"That is something we will see at another date, as it doesn't fit with what we are doing now."

So you've provided them a clear response, details of why we aren't using it, and reassurance that what we are doing now is beneficial, as well as that you will likely be seeing the movement they want at some point in the season.

The next step is following up with more details. This may be a quick email reiterating what you said, a longer format email with attached documents and resources to help them further understand your point of view, and or the season periodization/planning so that they can see first hand what is in store. Obviously the best course of action here is to educate the athlete and let them learn on their own.

I know for me as a strength coach for a sport that isn't my primary sport I tend to get questioned extra because "how would I know what the sport needs if I don't play it" sorta deal. If you find yourself in a situation similar to above, approach it the same way. Educate, be clear, and help them understand how you think.

Approach #1: Provide an answer they want to hear while clearly outlining your personal investment and knowledge.

Approach #2: Preach the collective goal "Team > me"

At a certain point there is no room for that player coach conversation. Everyone is open to communicate their thoughts and ask questions, but at a certain point (one i'm not sure where it starts) the response has to be as simple as "don't worry about the programming, that's my job, worry about yourself, and the team". Getting an athlete who is unsure of the direction of the programming or thinks they need more specific time allocated to them is tough and requires a 1 to 1 conversation. In this approach you must make it clear why you can't afford to spend extra time on them. Always directing the answers towards the idea of 'team first'. Making sure that the athlete clearly understands the finite resources available, time available, and that optimizing the team outcome outweighs that of each individual. Now with this in mind a question arises. What about elite athletes? Athletes that are most likely to go pro or at least next level...why not spend more time on them? And this is why there is two sides to the pyramid. Not only does professionalism reduce group size, generally, it also specifies who needs help. If you treat the right side of the pyramid as an indicator, if an athlete falls within the description of professional or is likely to be a professional then this most times indicates a need for more specificity. But thats a whole other conversation. Another point to bring to an athlete's attention is that you, the strength coach, is directed by the head coach, so even if you want to go in one direction or have a plan in mind it can all be flipped on its head by a single word from the head coach. Not to say, blame it on the head coach, or off load your problems to them, but have the athlete know (especially older athletes) that the direction you are going with the program is headed by the head coach and you are at the mercy of their decisions. But that's a tough card to sell at times and you don't want to form riffs amongst coaching staff. Recalling here the key words is Team > Me.

We've discussed consideration and how to build that understanding through clear communication, which is important in all relationships. The other component, which we've touched a bit on, is trust. Above I aligned trust, understanding, and drive. We've cleared trust and understanding to an extent; providing clear details and information so there is no questions left unanswered. But drive??? How do you motivate a player who isn't sure or doesn't trust the process?

Drive is a tough nut to crack. As a self motivated person I find it tough to understand how someone can't be motivated or at least recognize the red flags that their current mental approach isn't sufficient in their approach to the greater goal. But I do know that when you reward hard work and attendance that you indirectly get a lot of athletes to self access and self correct. Nothing creates change, in my opinion, better than seeing a peer being rewarded for something they aren't doing. If someone sees Joe Blow getting rewarded for picking up trash each time he walks past some then what do you do? You start picking up trash! No one told you to do it, you see the outcome and replicate the process. Same goes with athletes in a competitive training environment. Athlete A shows up 5 minutes early, rarely misses a session, asks questions, and follows the program to a T. Outcome = rewarded with honours and reaps the athletic benefits. Athlete B shows up late without proper foot attire, missed 3 sessions in the last 2 weeks, and makes excuses when they do show. Outcome = does not improve athletically, no offers, no player-coach respect or relationship. But Athlete B gets wind of Athlete A and all their accomplishments, and self accesses, self realizes, and says 'hey, i'm going to do what Athlete A does". Long story short, the outcome is you improve your bottom end and you have more Athlete As then Bs, and who doesn't want that?

So my approach to creating drive is developing a self constructive competitive environment that breeds athletes driven towards the common goal through a strong work ethic and intention for improvement. Let the players build themselves up, turn themselves away, and clearly define the outcome of their season by self selecting themselves. Can it be a sticky situation? Yes. Is it applicable at all age levels? No. But it is an approach that for most teams can be effective.

On an individual front creating drive is an interesting venture. Some athletes are self motivated, so keeping them on track and making sure they know they have your support is all it takes. Supporting them in other ways is the task more-so then mental/moral support. However, most people who hire coaches for 1-on-1 training likely lack self discipline and require a fair deal of checking in/accountability. I have found that frequent check ins, positive interactions, and clearly tracking metrics have been key ways of improving drive amongst 1-on-1 clients. Frequent check ins let the client know you are always there for them but also keeps the thought of you looming in the back of their head. If they feel like they might be letting you down, they are more likely to stay committed, not ideal, but that's just facts. Positive interactions are always...well, positive. Especially with online coaching it's tough to know how someone's day is going so sending a positive message or being super positive in person can make a huge difference, especially when the fitness may be something they aren't too hot on. Clearly tracking metrics is all about showing clients their mini successes on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Changing your body, whether weight or strength or whatever your goal is, is difficult and it takes TIME! So not seeing results can be a heavy load for some people. So clearly tracking metrics and showing their micro progress can help a ton in keeping someone motivated. "Hey, you've added 10lbs to your chest press in the last 3 weeks....that's amazing!". That right there can turn a "Hey coach I think i'm going to take a break" into "Hey coach, it's been tough lately, but i'm glad to see i'm making progress and look forward to working harder in the coming weeks". From the perspective of a coach it doesn't take much effort to be positive and in the end it helps you retain your clients.

Much like the team approach to creating drive, the 1-on-1 client approach is similar in that the client needs to see their worth and progress, but comes with a little more effort from you then it would in the team approach...and it's worth it!

So far we've covered the Coaching Pyramid, developing the conversation on the facets of player consideration, trust, and understanding, and reviewed an approach to improving drive amongst athletes whom don't trust, understand, or consider. Part 3 will look to question whether or not an athlete would benefit from getting their own personal coach (1-on-1) or following the team's programming.

If you've read part 1 and now part 2, please reach out in anyway to provide feedback, it is greatly appreciated.

Enjoy!

Evolve Through Xperience - ETX

"Progression is built through consistency and tested by passion"

JB